Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID)
To evaluate if use of an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) results in reduction in total mortality, when compared with conventional pharmacological therapy, in patients resuscitated from sudden cardiac death who are otherwise at very high risk of mortality from arrhythmic causes.
Sudden cardiac death is believed to account for a substantial proportion of deaths in patients with evidence of cardiovascular disease. The exact proportion of cardiac deaths that are classified as being sudden varies depending on the population, the underlying disease, and the definition of sudden death. Various estimates suggest that about 500,000 sudden cardiac deaths occur annually in the United States alone. The majority of sudden cardiac deaths are thought to be due to ventricular fibrillation (VF) or tachycardia (VT).
The commonest approach to preventing sudden cardiac death has been by the use of drugs that suppress ventricular ectopy. The rational for this approach is based upon an association between the presence or frequency of ventricular arrhythmia and subsequent mortality in several studies. None of the randomized controlled studies of numerous 'classical' antiarrhythmic agents (other than beta-blockers, which have only a modest effect on arrhythmia suppression) have demonstrated a reduction in sudden or non-sudden cardiac mortality. Indeed, in the recent Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST), two class Ic anti-arrhythmic agents demonstrated a 2.5 fold increase in the risk of sudden and non-sudden cardiac deaths despite excellent suppression of ventricular arrhythmia.
Given the disappointing results of most pharmacologic approaches to preventing sudden death, many investigators have turned to non-pharmacologic approaches such as surgery (endocardial resection, stellate ganglionectomy) or the implantation of devices that recognize VT or VF and deliver a shock. The greatest interest has been generated by work on the implantable cardiac defibrillator.
The study was reviewed by an ad hoc working group, the Clinical Applications and Prevention Advisory Committee, and several members of the Cardiology Advisory Committee prior to review and approval by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory Council in September 1991. The Request for Proposals was released in February 1992.
At approximately 28 clinical sites, patients with ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation were screened. Those with ventricular fibrillation or serious ventricular tachycardia were entered into a registry for long-term mortality follow-up using the National Death Index. Patients with the prospect of long-term benefit from an ICD and/or antiarrhythmic drug therapy and without exclusions to an ICD or to amiodarone and without a transient or correctible cause of the index event were entered into the trial.
Patients meeting the criteria were randomized to treatment with an ICD or treatment with antiarrhythmic drug therapy. Allocation was stratified by clinical site and index arrhythmia, either ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia. Patients assigned to the antiarrhythmic drug therapy and without contraindications to sotalol underwent subrandomization to either empiric amiodarone or sotalol, the latter treatment guided by either ambulatory monitoring or electrophysiologic testing. Patients who, after subrandomization, had low levels (less than 30 beats per hour) of ventricular ectopic beats and no inducible ventricular arrhythmias at electrophysiologic study were not treated with sotalol and instead received empiric amiodarone. The AVID protocol allowed usual clinical practice but restricted interventions to state-of-the art ICD devices and first-line antiarrhythmic agents to amiodarone and sotalol. Patients who could not take amiodarone were not included in the trial. The protocol encouraged the use of concurrent drugs such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, aspirin, and beta-blockers when appropriate, administered before randomization and maintained throughout the study. The primary endpoint was total mortality. Secondary endpoints were cost of health care and quality of life. Nonlethal events such as ICD shock, sustained arrhythmia, or syncope were tabulated.
Patients were followed every three months for assessment of secondary endpoints, to record therapies delivered by the ICD and potential adverse effects of the ICD, and to assess compliance and potential adverse symptoms in patients treated with antiarrhythmic drugs. A 12-lead electrocardiogram was obtained every six months, and appropriate laboratory and pulmonary tests were performed at six and eighteen months on patients receiving amiodarone. The average follow-up was expected to be 2.6 years. Analysis was done by intention-to-treat. The outcome of primary interest in the subrandomization between sotalol and amiodarone was the time to withdrawal from assigned therapy.
After a review of the data by the Data and Safety Monitoring Board, the AVID study was stopped early on April 7, 1997 because of the findings that after one year, patients in the defibrillator group experienced a nearly 38 percent reduction in deaths compared to the group of patients taking an antiarrhythmic drug. The defibrillator group had about a 25 percent reduction in deaths in years two and three.
Allocation: Randomized, Primary Purpose: Treatment
defibrillators, implantable, amiodarone amiodarone, sotalol
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
Results (where available)
- Source: http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00000531
- Information obtained from ClinicalTrials.gov on July 15, 2010
Medical and Biotech [MESH] Definitions
Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices
Types of artificial pacemakers with implantable leads to be placed at multiple intracardial sites. They are used to treat various cardiac conduction disturbances which interfere with the timing of contraction of the ventricles. They may or may not include defibrillating electrodes (IMPLANTABLE DEFIBRILLATORS) as well.
Implantable devices which continuously monitor the electrical activity of the heart and automatically detect and terminate ventricular tachycardia (TACHYCARDIA, VENTRICULAR) and VENTRICULAR FIBRILLATION. They consist of an impulse generator, batteries, and electrodes.
An antianginal and antiarrhythmic drug. It increases the duration of ventricular and atrial muscle action by inhibiting Na,K-activated myocardial adenosine triphosphatase. There is a resulting decrease in heart rate and in vascular resistance.
A potent anti-arrhythmia agent, effective in a wide range of ventricular and atrial arrhythmias and tachycardias. Paradoxically, however, in myocardial infarct patients with either symptomatic or asymptomatic arrhythmia, flecainide exacerbates the arrhythmia and is not recommended for use in these patients.
Cardiac electrical stimulators that apply brief high-voltage electroshocks to the HEART. These stimulators are used to restore normal rhythm and contractile function in hearts of patients who are experiencing VENTRICULAR FIBRILLATION or ventricular tachycardia (TACHYCARDIA, VENTRICULAR) that is not accompanied by a palpable PULSE. Some defibrillators may also be used to correct certain noncritical dysrhythmias (called synchronized defibrillation or CARDIOVERSION), using relatively low-level discharges synchronized to the patient's ECG waveform. (UMDNS, 2003)
To compare conventional treatment of congestive heart failure (CHF) with two experimental interventions: amiodarone and an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).
Atrial fibrillation is the most frequently occurring cardiac arrhythmia, with 1.0-1.5 million cases annually. It is a risk factor for congestive heart failure, and stroke, 75,000 cases of...
To compare the efficacy of amiodarone to conventional anti-arrhythmic therapy in individuals who had survived one episode of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
This is an open parallel design randomized trial of amiodarone plus a beta blocker vs a beta blocker alone vs sotalol for the prevention of ICD shocks in patients receiving an ICD for spon...
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (ICDs) provide a shock or pacing therapy to bring back a normal heart beat when a patient experiences a dangerous abnormal heart rhythm such as vent...
This case report describes incessant monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT), not Torsade de Pointes, induced by intravenous amiodarone in a 48-year-old woman with dilated cardiomyopathy. VT was repr...
PURPOSE: Although amiodarone is recognized as the most effective anti-arrhythmic drug available, it has negative hemodynamic effects. Nano-sized liposomes can accumulate in and selectively deliver dru...
A 66-year-old male received an implant of a dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and was prescribed amiodarone (400 mg/day). The intra-thoracic impedance monitor in the ICD antece...
Increases of pacing threshold stimulation are well documented with different antiarrhythmic drugs, but not with amiodarone. We report a case of a patient with dual-chamber pacing, with stable threshol...
Amiodarone is a potent anti-atrial fibrillation (AF) agent; however, its systemic administration induces serious side effects such as interstitial pneumonia. To avoid such effects, we developed a loca...